Abner, N., Flaherty, M., Stangl, K., Coppola, M., Brentari, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2019). The noun-verb distinction in established and emergent sign systems. Language, 95 (2), 230–267.Google Scholar

Abu-Zhaya, R., Seidl, A., & Cristia, A. (2017). Multimodal infant-directed communication: How caregivers combine tactile and linguistic cues. Journal of Child Language, 44, 1088–1116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Allen, J. S. & Miller, J. L. (2001). Contextual influences on the internal structure of phonetic categories: A distinction between lexical status and speaking rate. Perception & Psychophysics, 63 (5), 798–810.Google Scholar

Allen, T. (1986). A study of the achievement patterns of hearing-impaired students: 1974–1983. In Schildroth, A. N. & Karchmer, M. A. (eds.), Deaf Children in America (pp. 161–206). San Diego, CA: College-Hill.Google Scholar

Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15 (5), 802–814.Google Scholar

Ann, J. (1993). A linguistic investigation of the relationship between physiology and handshape. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar

Ann, J. (2006). Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Hand Shapes: The Taiwanese Example. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, D. & Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur communicative development inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7 (2), 83–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aparicio, M., Gounot, D., Demont, E., & Metz-Lutz, M. N. (2007). Phonological processing in relation to reading: An fMRI study in deaf readers. Neuroimage, 35, 1303–1316.Google Scholar

Aramburo, A. (1989). Sociolinguistic aspects of the black deaf community. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community (pp. 103–119). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Aristodemo, V. (2013). The complexity of handshapes: Perceptual and theoretical perspective. Masters thesis, Università Ca’Foscari Venezia, Venice.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Sandler, W. (2003). Classifier complexes and morphology in two sign languages. In Emmorey, K. (ed.), Perspectives on Classifiers in Signed Languages (pp. 53–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language, 81, 301–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aslin, R. N. & Pisoni, D. B. (1980). Effects of early linguistic experience on speech discrimination by infants: A critique of Eilers, Gavin and Wilson (1979). Child Development, 51(1), 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321–324.Google Scholar

Bailey, G. (2002). Real and apparent time. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (pp. 312–322). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Baker, A. E. & Woll, B. (eds.) (2009). Sign Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Baker, C. & Padden, C. (1978). Focusing on the non-manual components of American Sign Language. In Siple, P. (ed.), Understanding Language through Sign Language Research (pp. 27–57). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Baker, S. A., Idsardi, W. J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L. A. (2005). The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 33, 887–904.Google Scholar

Baker, S. A., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L. A. (2006). New insights into old puzzles from infants’ categorical discrimination of soundless phonetic units. Language Learning and Development, 2, 147–162.Google Scholar

Baker-Shenk, C. (1983). A micro-analysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Barakat, R. (1975). Cistercian sign language: A study in non-verbal communication. Cistercian Studies Series, 11. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications.Google Scholar

Barberà Altimira, G. (2012). The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC): Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar

Bartels, C. (1999). The Intonation of English Statements and Questions: A Compositional Interpretation. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar

Battison, R. (1974). Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 5, 5–19.Google Scholar

Battison, R. (1978). Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Reprinted. 2003, Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media, Inc.Google Scholar

Baus, C., Carreiras, M., & Emmorey, K. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 261–271.Google Scholar

Bavelier, D., Brozinsky, C., Tomann, A., Mitchell, T., Neville, H., & Liu, G. (2001). Impact of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral organization for motion processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 8931–8942.Google Scholar

Bayley, R., Lucas, C., & Rose, M. (2000). Variation in American Sign Language: The case of DEAF. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bayley, R., Lucas, C., & Rose, M. (2002). Phonological variation in American Sign Language: The case of 1 handshape. Language Variation and Change, 14, 19–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beckman, M. E. & Venditti, J. J. (2011). Intonation. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. (eds.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd ed., pp. 485–532). Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bélanger, N. N., Baum, S. R., & Mayberry, R. I. (2012). Reading difficulties in adult deaf readers of French: Phonological codes, not guilty! Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benedicto, E. & Brentari, D. (2004). Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 743–810.Google Scholar

Berent, I. (2013). The Phonological Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Berent, I., Bat-El, O., Brentari, D., Dupuis, A., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2016). The double identity of linguistic doubling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 13702–13707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berent, I., Bat-El, O., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2017). The double identity of doubling: Evidence for the phonology/morphology split. Cognition, 161, 117–128.Google Scholar

Berent, I., Dupuis, A., & Brentari, D. (2013). Amodal aspects of linguistic design: Evidence from sign language. PLOS ONE, 8, 1–17.Google Scholar

Berent, I., Dupuis, A., & Brentari, D. (2014). Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 560.Google Scholar

Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Jun, J., Moreno, M. A., & Smolensky, P. (2008). Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 5321–5325.Google Scholar

Berent, I., Marcus, G. F., Shimron, J., & Gafos, A. I. (2002). The scope of linguistic generalizations: Evidence from Hebrew word formation. Cognition, 83, 113–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin, V. (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 104, 591–630.Google Scholar

Best, C. T., Mathur, G., Miranda, K. A., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2010). Effects of sign language experience on categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 747–762.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10, 89–129.Google Scholar

Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bishop, M. (2010). Happen can’t hear: An analysis of code-blends in hearing, native signers of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 11, 205–240.Google Scholar

Blevins, J. (1993). The nature of constraints on the nondominant hand in ASL. In Coulter, G. (ed.), Phonetics and Phonology Vol. 3 (pp. 43–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar

Bochner, J. H., Christie, K., Hauser, P. C., & Searls, J. M. (2011). When is a difference really different? Learners’ discrimination of linguistic contrasts in American Sign Language. Language Learning, 61, 1302–1327.Google Scholar

Bodomo, A. (2006, April). The structure of ideophones in African and Asian languages: the case of Dagaare and Cantonese. In Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: African Languages and Linguistics in Broad Perspectives (pp. 203–213). Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Boersma, P. (2003). The odds of eternal optimization in Optimality Theory. In Eric Holt, D. (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change (pp. 31–65). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1983). Intonation and gesture. American Speech, 58, 156–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonvillian, J. D., Orlansky, M. D., & Folven, R. J. (1990). Early sign language acquisition: Implications for theories of language acquisition. In Volterra, V. & Erting, C. (eds.), From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 219–232). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Bonvillian, J. & Siedlecki, T. (1993). Young children’s acquisition of the location aspect of American Sign Language signs: Parental report findings. Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 13–35.Google Scholar

Bookheimer, S. (2002). Functional MRI of language: New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 151–188.Google Scholar

Bosworth, R. G. & Dobkins, K. R. (1999). Left hemisphere dominance for motion processing in deaf signers. Psychological Science, 10, 256–262.Google Scholar

Bosworth, R. G. & Emmorey, K. (2010). Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1573.Google Scholar

Bosworth, R., Wright, C., Bartlett, M., Corina, D., & Dobkins, K. (2003). Characterization of the visual properties of signs in ASL. In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., & Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research (pp. 265–282). Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar

Boudreault, P. & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608–635.Google Scholar

Boutora, L. & Karypidis, C. (2007). Are French Sign Language handshapes perceived categorically? Cognitextes (poster presented at the AFLICO conference 2007).Google Scholar

Boyes-Braem, P. (1981). Features of the hand shape in ASL. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Boyes Braem, P. (1990a). Einführung in die Gebärdensprache und ihre Erforschung. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar

Boyes Braem, P. (1990b.) Acquisition of handshape in American Sign Language: A preliminary analysis. In Volterra, V. & Erting, C. (eds.), From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 107–127). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Boyes Braem, P. (1999). Rhythmic temporal patterns in the signing of early and late learners of German Swiss Sign Language. Language and Speech, 42, 177–208.Google Scholar

Boyes Braem, P. (2001). Functions of the mouthing component in the signing of deaf early and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Language (pp. 1–47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Brand, R. J., Baldwin, D. A., & Ashburn, L. A. (2002). Evidence for “motionese”: Modifications in mothers” infant‐directed action. Developmental Science, 5, 72–83.Google Scholar

Brand, R. J., Shallcross, W. L., Sabatos, M. G., & Massie, K. P. (2007). Fine-grained analysis of motionese: Eye gaze, object exchanges, and action units in infant-versus adult-directed action. Infancy, 11, 203–214.Google Scholar

Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brennan, M. (2005). Conjoining word and image in British Sign Language (BSL): An exploration of metaphorical signs in BSL. Sign Language Studies, 5, 360–382.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (1988). Backwards verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. In MacLeod, L., Larson, G., & Brentari, D. (eds.), Proceedings from the Chicago Linguistic Society 24,Vol. 2, Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory (pp. 16–27). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (1990a). Theoretical foundations in American Sign Language phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (1990b). Licensing in ASL handshape change. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues (pp. 57–68). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (1993). Establishing a sonority hierarchy in American Sign Language: The use of simultaneous structure in phonology. Phonology, 10, 281–306.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (1998). A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (2002). Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In Meier, R., Quinto, D., & Cormier, K (eds.), Modality in Language and Linguistic Theory (pp. 35–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (2005). The use of morphological templates to specify handshapes in sign languages. Linguistische Berichte, 13, 145–177.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (2006). Effects of language modality on word segmentation: An experimental study of phonological factors in a sign language. In Goldstein, L., Whalen, D., & Best, C. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology VIII (pp. 155–164). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (2010). Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (2011). Sign language phonology: ASL. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), A Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 615–639). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (2016). Sign language phonology. In Gertz, G. & Boudreault, P. (eds.), The SAGE Deaf Studies Encyclopedia. Washington, DC: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. (2018). Modality and contextual salience in co-sign vs. co-speech gesture. Theoretical linguistics, 44 (3–4), 215–226.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. & Crossley, L. (2002). Prosody on the hands and face: Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 5, 105–130.Google Scholar

Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Cho, P. W., & Senghas, A. (2017). Handshape complexity as a pre-cursor to phonology: Variation, emergence, and acquisition. Language Acquisition 24(4),283–306. doi:10.1080/10489223.2016.1187614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Jung, A. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). Acquiring word class distinctions in American Sign Language: Evidence from handshape. Language Learning and Development, 9 (2), 130–150.Google Scholar

Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012a). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30, 1–31.Google Scholar

Brentari, D, Falk, J., Giannakidou, A, Herrmann, A., Volk, E., & Steinbach, M. (2018). Production and comprehension of prosodic markers in sign language imperatives. Frontiers in Psychology, Special issue on Visual Language (W. Sandler & C. Padden, eds.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brentari, D., Falk, J., & Wolford, G. (2015b). The acquisition of prosody in American Sign Language. Language, 91, e144–e168.Google Scholar

Brentari, D., González, C., Seidl, A., & Wilbur, R. (2011). Sensitivity to visual prosodic cues in signers and nonsigners. Language and Speech, 54, 49–72.Google Scholar

Brentari, D., Hill, J., & Amador, B. (2018). Variation in phrasal rhythm in sign languages: Introducing “rhythm ratio”. Sign Language & Linguistics, 21, 41–76.Google Scholar

Brentari, D., & Padden, C. (2001). A language with multiple origins: Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language. In Brentari, D., (ed.), Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Language: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Word Formation (pp. 87–119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Brentari, D. & Poizner, H. (1994). A phonological analysis of a deaf Parkinsonian signer. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 69–100.Google Scholar

Brentari, D., Poizner, H., & Kegl, J. (1995). Aphasic and Parkinsonian signing: Differences in phonological disruption. Brain and Language, 48, 69–105.Google Scholar

Brentari, D., Nadolske, M. A., & Wolford, G. (2012b). Can experience with co-speech gesture influence the prosody of a sign language? Sign language prosodic cues in bimodal bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 402–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brentari, D., Renzo, A. D., Keane, J., & Volterra, V. (2015a). Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 95–123.Google Scholar

Broca, P. (1861/1960). Remarques sur le siège de la faculté du langage articulé, suivies d’une observation d’aphémie (perte de la parole). Bulletins de la Société Anatomique (Paris), 6, 330–357, 398–407. In Von Bonin, G., (ed.), Some papers on the cerebral cortex. Translated as “Remarks on the seat of the faculty of articulate language followed by an observation of aphemia” (pp. 49–72). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar

Brookshire, G., Lu, J., Nusbaum, H. C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Casasanto, D. (2017). Visual cortex entrains to sign language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 6352–6357.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6, 201–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49, 155–180.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (1994). A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 285–305.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2003). Phonology and Language Use (Vol. 94). Cambridge/New York: Camberidge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, R., Martin, P., & White, T. (1992). Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British Sign Language. Applied Linguistics, 13, 185–201.Google Scholar

Cardin, V., Orfanidou, E., Kästner, L., Rönnberg, J., Woll, B., Capek, C. M., & Rudner, M. (2015). Monitoring different phonological parameters of sign language engages the same cortical language network but distinctive perceptual ones. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 20–40.Google Scholar

Carreiras, M., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Baquero, S., & Corina, D. (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish sign language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 100–122.Google Scholar

Carrigan, E. & Coppola, M. (2017). Successful communication does not drive language development: Evidence from adult homesign. Cognition, 158, 10–27.Google Scholar

Carstairs McCarthy, A. (2001). ASL “syllables” and language evolution: A response to Uriagereka. Language, 77, 343–349.Google Scholar

Caselli, N. K., & Pyers, J. E. (2017). The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science, 28, 979–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caselli, N. K., Sehyr, Z. S., Cohen-Goldberg, A. M., & Emmorey, K. (2017). ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 784–801.Google Scholar

Chase, C. & Jenner, A. R. (1993). Magnocellular visual deficits affect temporal processing of dyslexics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 682, 326–329.Google Scholar

Cheek, A., Cormier, K., Repp, A., & Meier, R. P. (2001). Prelinguistic gesture predicts mastery and error in the production of early signs. Language, 77, 292–323.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structure. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Church, R. B. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 23, 43–71.Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Gerrig, R. (1990). Quotation as demonstration. Language, 66, 764–805.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology, 2, 225–252.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Beckman, M. (ed.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech (pp. 282–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. (2001). Representational economy in constraint-based phonology. In Hall, T. A. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory (pp. 71–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clements, G. N. & Hume, E. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, J., (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 245–306). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Conlin, K., Mirus, G., Mauk, C., & Meier, R. (2000). The acquisition of first signs: Place, handshape and movement. In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J., & Mayberry, R. (eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 51–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Coppola, M., & Brentari, D. (2014). From iconic handshapes to grammatical contrasts: Longitudinal evidence from a child homesigner. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 830.Google Scholar

Corina, D. (1990). Reassessing the role of sonority in syllable structure: Evidence from a visual-gestural language. In Ziolkowski, M., Noske, M. & Deaton, K. (eds.), Proceedings for the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 26; Vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology (pp. 33–43). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Corina, D. P. (1999). On the nature of left hemisphere specialization for signed language. Brain and Language, 69, 230–240.Google Scholar

Corina, D. P., Jose-Robertson, L. S., Guillemin, A., High, J., & Braun, A. R. (2003). Language lateralization in a bimanual language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 718–730.Google Scholar

Corina, D. P., & Knapp, H. P. (2006). Lexical retrieval in American Sign Language production. Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 8, 213–240.Google Scholar

Corina, D. P., McBurney, S. L., Dodrill, C., Hinshaw, K., Brinkley, J., & Ojemann, G. (1999). Functional roles of Broca’s area and SMG: Evidence from cortical stimulation mapping in a deaf signer. Neuroimage, 10, 570–581.Google Scholar

Cormier, K., Schembri, A. C., & Tyrone, M. E. (2008). One hand or two? Nativisation of fingerspelling in ASL and BANZSL. Sign Language & Linguistics, 11, 3–44.Google Scholar

Cormier, K., Quinto-Pozos, D., Sevcikova, Z., & Schembri, A. (2012). Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication, 32, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Coulter, G. (1993). Current Issues in American Sign Language Phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Crasborn, O. (2001). Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar

Crasborn, O. (2012). Phonetics. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 4–20). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cresdee, D., & Johnston, T. (2014). Using corpus-based research to inform the teaching of Auslan as a second language. In McKee, D., Rosen, R., & McKee, R. (eds.), Signed languages as second language: International perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 85–110). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Crasborn, O. & van der Kooij, E. (1997). Relative orientation in sign language phonology. In Coerts, J. & Hoop, H. de (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997 (pp. 37–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cristia, A. (2011). Fine-grained variation in caregivers’/s/predicts their infants’/s/category. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129, 3271–3280.Google Scholar

Cristia, A., Seidl, A., Junge, C., Soderstrom, M., & Hagoort, P. (2014). Predicting individual variation in language from infant speech perception measures. Child Development, 85, 1330–1345.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cutting, J. E., & Rosner, B. S. (1974). Categories and boundaries in speech and music. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 564–570.Google Scholar

Cuxac, C., & Sallandre, M. (2007). Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 36, 13.Google Scholar

Dachkovsky, S. (2007). Linguistic vs. paralinguistic intonation in sign language. Presentation at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Dachkovsky, S., Healy, C., & Sandler, W. (2013). Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology, 30, 211–252.Google Scholar

Davidson, K. (2015). Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38, 477–520.Google Scholar

Dell, F., & Elmedlaoui, M. (1985). Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 7, 105–130.Google Scholar

Demey, E. & van der Kooij, E. (2008) Phonological patterns in a dependency model: Allophonic relations grounded in phonetic and iconic motivation. Lingua, 118, 1109–1138.Google Scholar

Deuchar, M. 1984. British Sign Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Devlin, J. T., Matthews, P. M., & Rushworth, M. F. (2003). Semantic processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex: A combined functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 71–84.Google Scholar

Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.Google Scholar

Diffloth, G. (1972). Notes on expressive meaning. Proceedings from the 8th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 440–447). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Dingemanse, M., Schuerman, W., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S., & Mitterer, H. (2016). What sound symbolism can and cannot do: Testing the iconicity of ideophones from five languages. Language, 92, e117–e133.Google Scholar

do Carmo, P., Mineiro, A., Branco, J. C., de Quadros, R. M., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Handshape is the hardest path in Portuguese Sign Language acquisition: Towards a universal modality constraint. Sign Language & Linguistics, 16, 75–90.Google Scholar

Downing, L., Hall, T. A., & Raffelsiefen, R. (2004). Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dronkers, N. F., Redfern, B. B., & Knight, R. T. (2000). The neural architecture of language disorders. In Gazzaniga, M. (ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences (pp. 949–960). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dronkers, N. F., Redfern, B. B., & Ludy, C. A. (1995). Lesion localization in chronic Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language, 51, 62–65.Google Scholar

Dudis, P. G. (2004). Depiction of events in ASL: Conceptual integration of temporal components. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Dunbar, E. & Dupoux, E. (2016). Geometric constraints on human speech sound inventories. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01061.Google Scholar

Duncan, S. (2005). Gesture in signing: A case study from Taiwan Sign Language. Language and Linguistics, 6, 279–318.Google Scholar

Dye, M. W., Hauser, P. C., & Bavelier, D. (2009). Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? The case of the useful field of view. PloS one, 4(5), e5640.Google Scholar

Eccarius, P. (2008). A constraint-based account of handshape contrast in sign languages. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar

Eccarius, P. & Brentari, D. (2007). Symmetry and dominance: A cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier constructions. Lingua, 117, 1169–1201.Google Scholar

Eccarius, P. & Brentari, D.. (2008). Contrast differences across lexical substrata: Evidence from the ASL handshape. In Adams, N., Cooper, A., Parrill, F., & Weir, T. (eds.) Proceedings from the 44th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2 (pp. 187–201). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Eccarius, P. & Brentari, D. (2010). A formal analysis of phonological contrast and iconicity in sign language handshapes. Sign Language & Linguistics, 13, 156–181.Google Scholar

Eimas, P. D. (1963). The relation between identification and discrimination along speech and non-speech continua. Language and Speech, 6(4), 206–217.Google Scholar

Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K. (1999). Do signers gesture? In Messing, L. & Campbell, R. (eds.) Gesture, Speech, and Sign (pp. 133–159). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124.Google Scholar

Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1978). The Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Action. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Bellugi, U., Friederici, A., & Horn, P. (1995). Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 1–23.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Giezen, M. R., Petrich, J. A., Spurgeon, E., & Farnady, L. O. G. (2017). The relation between working memory and language comprehension in signers and speakers. Acta Psychologica, 177, 69–77.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Hichwa, R., & Bellugi, U. (2004). Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and Language, 89, 27–37.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Emmorey, K. (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Signed Languages (pp. 222–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Kosslyn, S. M., & Bellugi, U. (1993). Visual imagery and visual-spatial language: Enhanced imagery abilities in deaf and hearing ASL signers. Cognition, 46, 139–181.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., McCullough, S., & Brentari, D. (2003). Categorical perception in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 21–45.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Mehta, S. & Grabowski, T. (2007). The neural correlates of sign versus word production. NeuroImage, 36, 202–208.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Mehta, S., McCullough, S., & Grabowski, T.J. (2014). How sensory-motor systems impact the neural organization for language: Direct contrasts between spoken and signed language. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00484.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Mehta, S., McCullough, S., & Grabowski, T. J. (2016). The neural circuits recruited for the production of signs and fingerspelled words. Brain and Language, 160, 30–41.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Weisberg, J., McCullough, S., & Petrich, J. A. (2013). Mapping the reading circuitry for skilled deaf readers: An fMRI study of semantic and phonological processing. Brain and Language, 126, 169–180.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Xu, J., & Braun, A. (2011). Neural responses to meaningless pseudosigns: Evidence for sign-based phonetic processing in superior temporal cortex. Brain and Language, 117, 34–38.Google Scholar

Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar

Ergin, R. (2017). Central taurus sign language: A unique vantage point into language emergence. Doctoral dissertation, Tufts University.Google Scholar

Ergin, R. & Brentari, B. (2017). Handshape preferences for objects and predicates in Central Taurus Sign Language. In LaMendola, M. & Scott, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 222–235). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Erting, C.J., Prezioso, C., & Hynes, M. G. (1990). The interactional context of mother-infant communication. In Volterra, V., & Erting, C. (eds.), From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 97–106). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Etxeberria, U. & Irurtzun, A. (2015). The emergence of scalar meanings. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 141.Google Scholar

Fenlon, J., Cooperrider, K., Keane, J., Brentari, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2019). Comparing sign language and gesture: Insights from pointing. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.499.Google Scholar

Fenlon, J., Cormier, K. & Brentari, D. (2017). The phonology of sign languages. In Hannahs, S.J. & Bosch, A. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 453–475). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fenlon, J., Cormier, K., Rentelis, R., Schembri, A., Rowley, K., Adam, R., & Woll, B. (2014a). BSL SignBank: A Lexical Database of British Sign Language (1st ed.). London: Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London.Google Scholar

Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., Rentelis, R., & Cormier, K. (2013). Variation in handshape and orientation in British Sign Language: The case of the “1”hand configuration. Language & Communication, 33(1), 69–91.Google Scholar

Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., Rentelis, R., Vinson, D., & Cormier, K. (2014b). Using conversational data to determine lexical frequency in British Sign Language: The influence of text type. Lingua, 143, 187–202.Google Scholar

Fiez, J. A. (1997). Phonology, semantics, and the role of the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 5, 79–83.Google Scholar

Fischer, S. (1978). Sign language and creoles. In Siple, P. (ed.), Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research: Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics (pp. 309–331). New York, NY/San Francisco, CA/London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Fischer, S. & Gough, B. (1978). Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 7, 17–48.Google Scholar

Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second-language speech. In Birdsong, David (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and The Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 101–131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.Google Scholar

Flemming, E. (1995). Auditory representations in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Flemming, E. (1996). Evidence for constraints on contrast: The dispersion theory of contrast. UCLA Working Papers in Phonology, 1, 86–106.Google Scholar

Flemming, E. (1997). Phonetic optimization: Compromise in speech production. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 72–91.Google Scholar

Flemming, E. (2002). Auditory Representations in Phonology. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Flemming, E. (2017). Dispersion theory and phonology. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fogel, A. (1981). The ontogeny of gestural communication: The first six months. In Stark, R.E. (ed.), Language Behavior in Infancy and Early Childhood (pp. 17–44). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar

Fontana, S., Corazza, S., Braem, P. B., & Volterra, V. (2017). Language research and language community change: Italian sign language 1981–2013. Sign Language Studies, 17, 363–398.Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A., 2004. Speech as a supramodal or amodal phenomenon. In Calvert, G., Spence, C., & Stein, B. E. (eds.), Handbook of Multisensory Processes (pp. 189–201). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, L. A. (1976). Phonology of a soundless language: Phonological structure of the American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Friedman, L. A. (ed.). (1977). On The Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 696–719.Google Scholar

Fromkin, V. A. (1973). Introduction. In Fromkin, V. A. (ed.), Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence (pp. 11–45). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Fuks, O. (submitted) Two styles of infant-directed signing in Israeli sign language. Language, Learning & Development.Google Scholar

Geraci, C. (2009). Epenthesis in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 12(1), 3–51.Google Scholar

Geraci, C., Battaglia, K., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., Giudice, S., & Mereghetti, E. (2011). The LIS corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies, 11, 528–574.Google Scholar

Geraci, C., Bayley, R., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., & Donati, C. (2015). Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of wh-signs. Linguistics, 53, 125–151.Google Scholar

Giezen, M. R. & Emmorey, K. (2017). Evidence for a bimodal bilingual disadvantage in letter fluency, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1),42–48.Google Scholar

Giraud, A. L. & Poeppel, D. (2012). Cortical oscillations and speech processing: Emerging computational principles and operations. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 511.Google Scholar

Goffman, L., Gerken, L., & Lucchesi, J. (2007). Relations between segmental and motor variability in prosodically complex nonword sequences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 444–458.Google Scholar

Göksel, A. & Kelepir, M. (2013). The phonological and semantic bifurcation of the functions of an articulator: HEAD in questions in Turkish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 16, 1–30.Google Scholar

Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 501–518.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). The Resilience of Language: What Gesture Creation in Deaf Children Can Tell Us about How All Children Learn Language. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. & Brentari, D. (2017). Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S., McNeill, D., & Singleton, J. (1996). Silence is liberating: Removing the handcuffs on grammatical expression in the manual modality. Psychological Review, 103, 34.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. (1983). Gestural communication in deaf children: Noneffect of parental input on language development. Science, 221, 372–374.Google Scholar

Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Marcario, J. K. (1992). Form-based priming in spoken word recognition: The roles of competition and bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1211–1238.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. [Published New York: Garland Press, 1979].Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. (1992). Tone and accent in Llogoori. In Brentari, D., Larson, G., & MacLeod, L. (eds.), The Joy of Syntax: A Festschrift in Honor of James D. McCawley (pp. 73–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. (2001). Probabilistic models of grammar: phonology as information minimization. Phonological Studies, Vol. 5. Tokyo: The Phonological Society of Japan (Kaitakusha).Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. (2002). Probabilistic models of grammar: Phonology as information minimization. Phonological Studies, 5, 21–46.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. & Larson, G. (1990). Local modeling and syllabification. In Papers from the 26th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago Linguistics Society, 129–141.Google Scholar

Gollan, T. H. & Acenas, L. A. (2004). What is a TOT? Cognate and translation effects on tip-of-the-tongue states in Spanish–English and Tagalog–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 246–269.Google Scholar

Golston, C. & Yang, P. (2001). White Hmong loanword phonology. In Féry, C., Green, A. D., & van de Vijver, R. (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5 (pp. 40–57). Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar

Gómez, D. M., Berent, I., Benavides-Varela, S., Bion, R. A. H., Cattarossi, L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2014). Language universals at birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(16), 5837–5341.Google Scholar

Gordon, M. (2006). Syllable Weight: Phonetics, Phonology, Typology. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Grabe, E. & Low, E. L. (2002). Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 7, Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Green, D. M. (1971). Temporal auditory acuity. Psychological Review, 78, 540.Google Scholar

Grenoble, L., Baglini, R., & Martinović, M. (2015). Verbal gestures in Wolof. In Kramer, R., Zsiga, E. C., & Tlale Boyer, O. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (ACAL 44) (pp. 110–121). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Grigely, J. (1996). Textualterity: Art, Theory, and Textual Criticism. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Groce, N. E. (1985). Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. & Lane, H. (1976). How the listener integrates the components of speaking rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 538–543.Google Scholar

Grosvald, M. & Corina, D. (2012a). Perception of long-distance coarticulation: An event-related potential and behavioral study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(1), 55–82.Google Scholar

Grosvald, M. & Corina, D. (2012b) The perceptibility of long-distance coarticulation in speech and sign: A study of English and American Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 15, 73–103.Google Scholar

Grote, K. & Linz, E. (2003). The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Müller, W. & Fischer, O. (eds.), From sign to signing: Iconicity in Language and Literature, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language, 54, 564–589.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56, 515–540.Google Scholar

Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14, 31–38.Google Scholar

Hall, M. & Bavelier, D. (2010). Working memory, deafness and sign language. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E. (eds.), The Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education, Vol. 2. (pp. 458–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, M. L., Ferreira, V. S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2012). Phonological similarity judgments in ASL: Evidence for maturational constraints on phonetic perception in sign. Sign Language & Linguistics, 15, 104–127.Google Scholar

Halle, M. (1959). The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J. R. (1987). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hanson, V. L. & Fowler, C. A. (1987). Phonological coding in word reading: Evidence from hearing and deaf readers. Memory & Cognition, 15, 199–207.Google Scholar

Hara, D. (2003). A complexity-based approach to the syllable formation in sign language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Harnad, S. (1987). Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Harris, M., Clibbens, J., Chasin, J., & Tibbitts, R. (1989). The social context of early sign language development. First Language, 9, 81–97.Google Scholar

Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar

Hayes, B (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253–306.Google Scholar

Herrmann, A. (2015). The marking of information structure in German Sign Language. Lingua, 165, 277–297.Google Scholar

Herrmann, A. & Pendzich, N-K. (2014). Nonmanual gestures in Sign Languages. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (eds.), Handbook Body – Language – Communication (pp. 1249–1260). Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. S. (1996). The neurobiology of sign language and its implications for the neural basis of language. Nature, 381(6584), 699–702.Google Scholar

Higgins, D. (1923). How to Talk to the Deaf. St. Louis, MO: Higgins.Google Scholar

Hildebrandt, U. & Corina, D. (2002). Phonological similarity in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 593–612.Google Scholar

Hillis, A. E., Wang, P., Barker, P., Beauchamp, N., Gordon, B. & Wityk, R., (2000). Magnetic resonance perfusion imaging: A new method for localizing regions of brain dysfunction associated with specific lexical impairments? Aphasiology, 14(5–6), 471–483.Google Scholar

Hillyard, S. A. & Picton, T. W. (1979). Conscious perception and cerebral event-related potentials. In Desmedt, J. E. (ed.), Cognitive Components in Cerebral Event-Related Potentials and Selective Attention. Progress in Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 6. (pp. 1–52). Basel: Karger.Google Scholar

Hirsh, I. J. & Sherrick, C. E. Jr (1961). Perceived order in different sense modalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 423.Google Scholar

Hirshorn, E., Dye, W. M., Hauser, P., Supalla, T., & Bavelier, D. (2015). The contribution of phonological knowledge, memory, and language background to reading comprehension in deaf populations. Frontiers in Psychology, 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01153.Google Scholar

Hockett, C. (1955). A Manual of Phonology. Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press.Google Scholar

Hockett, C. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 89–96.Google Scholar

Hockett, C. F. (1978). In search of Jove’s brow. American Speech, 53, 243–313.Google Scholar

Hohenberger, A., Happ, D., & Leuninger, H. (2002). Modality-dependent aspects of sign language production: Evidence from slips of the hands and their repairs in German Sign Language. In Meier, R., Quinto, D., & Cormier, K. (eds.), Modality in Language and Linguistic Theory (pp. 112–142). Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Holm, J. (2000). An Introduction to Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Holzrichter, A. & Meier, R. P., (2000). Child-directed signing in American Sign Language. In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J., & Mayberry, R. (eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Hömke, P., Holler, J., & Levinson, S. (2017). Eye blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 54–70.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. (1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horton, , (2018). Conventionalization of shared homesign systems in Guatemala: Lexical & morpho-phonological dimensions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Horton, L., Goldin-Meadow, S., Coppola, M., Senghas, A., & Brentari, D. (2015). Forging a morphological system out of two dimensions: Agentivity and number. Open Linguistics, 1, 596–613.Google Scholar

Hosemann, J., Altvater-Mackensen, N., Herrman, A., & Mani, N. (2013). Cross-modal language activation. Does processing a sign (L1) also activate its corresponding written translations (L2)? Presented at the 11th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, London.Google Scholar

Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., & Rathmann, C. (2014). Ensuring language acquisition for deaf children: What linguists can do. Language, 90, e31–e52.Google Scholar

Humphries, T., & MacDougall, F. (2000). “Chaining” and other links: Making connections between American Sign Language and English in Two Types of School Settings. Visual Anthropology Review, 15, 84–94.Google Scholar

Hwang, S-O. (2011). Windows into sensory integration and rates in language processing: Insights from signed and spoken languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Hwang, S-O, Tomita, N., Morgan, H., Ergin, R., Ilbasaran, D., Seegers, S., Lepic, R., & Padden, C. (2017). Of the body and the hands: Patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition, 9, 573–602.Google Scholar

Hyman, L. (1985). A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Idsardi, W. (1992). The computation of prosody. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Inkelas, S. (2011). The phonology-morphology interaction. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. (eds.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd ed., pp. 68–102). Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.Google Scholar

Iskarous, K. & Goldstein, L. (2018). The dynamics of prominence profiles: From local computation to global patterns. In Brentari, D. & Lee, J. (eds.), Shaping Phonology (pp. 153–177). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Israel, A. & Sandler, W. (2011). Phonological category resolution: A study of handshapes in younger and older sign languages. In Channon, R. & van der Hulst, H. (eds.), Formational Units in Sign Languages (pp. 177–202). Berlin: De Gruyter / Ishara Press.Google Scholar

Itô, Junko. (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, New York (Published 1989, Garland Press).Google Scholar

Itô, J. & Mester, A. (1995a). The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on re-ranking. In Beckman, J, Urbanczyk, S., & Walsh, L. (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics [UMOP] Vol. 18: Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 181–209). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

Itô, J. & Mester, A. (1995b). Japanese phonology. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. (eds.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd ed., pp. 817–838). Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1996). The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadal, L., & Garrett, M. E (eds.), Language and Space (pp. 1–30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. (1971/1990). Shifters verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings II (pp.130–147). The Hague: Mouton. [also in L.R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (eds.) On Language (pp. 386–392). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.]Google Scholar

Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and their Correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jantunen, T. (2006). The complexity of lexical movements in FinSL. In Suominen, M., Arppe, A., Airola, A., Heinamaki, O., Miestamo, M., Määttä, U., Niemi, J., Pitkaänen, K. K. & Sinnemäki, K. (eds.), A Man of Measure: Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on His 60th Birthday (pp. 335–344). Turku: The Linguistic Association of Finland (Special Supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics; vol. 19, 2006).Google Scholar

Jantunen, T. (2007). Tavu suomalaisessa viittomakielessä. [The syllable in Finnish Sign Language; with English abstract] Puhe ja kieli, 27, 109–126.Google Scholar

Jantunen, T, & Takkinen, R. (2010). Syllable structure in sign language phonology. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages (pp. 312–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Japan Institute for Sign Language Studies (ed.). (1997). The Japanese-Japanese Sign Language Dictionary. Tokyo: Federation of the Deaf.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. & Hume, E. (2003). Phonetic explanation in phonology: Overview of the symposium. In Solé, M.J., Recasens, D., & Romero, J. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 359–361). Barcelona: Casual Productions.Google Scholar

Johnston, T. (1989). Auslan: The sign language of the Australian deaf community. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney.Google Scholar

Johnston, T. (2002). BSL, Auslan and NZSL: Three signed languages or one? In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., & Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research: Selected Papers from TISLR 2000 (pp. 47–69). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar

Johnston, T. & Schembri, A. C. (1999). On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2, 115–185.Google Scholar

Jusczyk, P. W., Houston, D. M., & Newsome, M. (1999). The beginnings of word segmentation in English-learning infants. Cognitive Psychology. 39, 159–207.Google Scholar

Jusczyk, P. W., Rosner, B. S., Cutting, J. E., Foard, C. F., & Smith, L. B. (1977). Categorical perception of nonspeech sounds by 2-month-old infants. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 50–54.Google Scholar

Kantor, R. (1980). The acquisition of classifier handshapes in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 28, 193–200.Google Scholar

Kaschube, D. (1967). Structural Elements of Crow. University of Colorado Press.Google Scholar

Keane, J. (2014). Towards an articulatory model of handshape: What fingerspelling tells us about the phonetics and phonology of handshape in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Keane, J. & Brentari, D. (2016). Fingerspelling: Beyond handshape sequences. In Marschark, M. & Siple, P., (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language: Research, Policy, and Practice (pp. 146–160). New York, NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Keane, J., Brentari, D. & Riggle, J. (2015). Segmentation and pinky extension in in ASL fingerspelling. In Raimy, E. & Cairns, C. (eds.), The Segment in Phonology and Phonetics (pp. 103–128). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kegl, J. (1985). Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax and discourse. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Kegl, J. & Iwata, G. (1989). Lenguaje de Signos Nicaragüense: A pidgin sheds light on the “Creole?” ASL. In Carlson, R., DeLancey, S., Gildea, S., Payne, D., & Saxena, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meetings of the Pacific Linguistics Conference (pp. 266–294). Eugene, OR: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.Google Scholar

Kelly, A. (1995). Fingerspelling interaction: A set of deaf patterns and her daughter. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, vol 1 (pp. 62–73). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (1980). The sign language of the women of Yuendumu: A preliminary report on the structure of Warlpiri sign language. Sign Language Studies, 27, 101–112.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (1984). Knowledge of sign language in an Australian aboriginal community. Journal of Anthropological Research, 40, 556–576.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (1985). Iconicity in Warlpiri Sign Language. In Bouissac, P., Herzfeld, M., & Posner, R. (eds.), Iconicity: Essay on the Nature of Culture. Tübingen: Stauffenburger Verlag.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (1987). Speaking and signing simultaneously in Warlpiri sign language users. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 6, 25–68.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (1988). Parallels and divergences between Warlpiri sign language and spoken Warlpiri: Analyses of signed and spoken discourses. Oceania, 58, 239–254.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kimmelman, V., Sáfár, A., & Crasborn, O. (2016). Towards a classification of weak hand holds. Open Linguistics, 2, 211–234.Google Scholar

Kiparksy, P. (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In Yang, I. S. (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 3–91). Seoul: Hanshin Press.Google Scholar

Kita, S., Ingeborg, V. G., & van der Hulst, H. (2014). The non-linguistic status of the symmetry condition in signed languages. Sign Language & Linguistics, 17, 215–238.Google Scholar

Kita, S. & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 16–32.Google Scholar

Kisch, S. (2012). Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a shared sign-language: The case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In Zeshan, Ulrike & de Vos, Connie(eds.), Sign Languages in Village Communities: Anthropological and Linguistic Insights (pp. 87–125). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1979). The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kluender, K. R. & Kiefte, M. (2006). Speech perception within a biologically-realistic information-theoretic framework. In Gernsbacher, M. A. & Traxler, M. (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 153–199). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Kohlrausch, A., Püschel, D., & Alphei, H. (1992). Temporal resolution and modulation analysis in models of the auditory system. The Auditory Processing of Speech: From Sounds to Words, 10, 85.Google Scholar

Krahmer, E. & Swerts, M. (2007). The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 396–414.Google Scholar

Kubus, O., Villwock, A., Morford, J. P., & Rathmann, C. (2015). Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics. 6, 831–854.Google Scholar

Kuhl, P. K. & Miller, J. D. (1975). Speech perception by the chinchilla: Voiced-voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants. Science, 190, 69–72.Google Scholar

Kuramada, M. Brown, Bibyk, S., Pontillo, D., & Tanenhaus, M. (2014). Is it or isn’t it: Listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings. Cognition 133, 335–342.Google Scholar

Kusters, A. (2017). Innovation in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change, Language Variation and Change, 19: 205–254.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. R. (2014). Simultaneous Structure in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Laks, B., Calderone, B., & Celata, C. (2018). French liaison in the light of corpus phonology: From lexical information to patterns of usage variation. In Brentari, D. & Lee, J. (eds.), Shaping Phonology: Essays in Honor of John Goldsmith. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Landau, L. & Lifshitz, E. (1987). Fluid Mechanics. In Course of Theoretical Physics, 2nd ed. (pp. 378–382). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Lane, H. (1984). When the Mind Hears. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar

Lane, H., Boyes-Braem, P., & Bellugi, U. (1976). Preliminaries to a distinctive feature analysis of handshapes in American Sign Language. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 263–289.Google Scholar

Lane, H., Pillard, R., & French, M. (2000). Origins of the American deaf-world: Assimilating and differentiating societies and their relation to genetic patterning. Sign Language Studies, 1, 17–44.Google Scholar

Lang, G. (2008). Making Wawa: The Genesis of Chinook Jargon. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar

Launer, P. B. (1982). “A plane” is not “to fly”: Acquiring the distinction between related nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. NewYork, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar

Lepic, R., Börstell, C., Belsitzman, G., & Sandler, W. (2016). Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics 19, 37–81.Google Scholar

Lewin, T. (2010). Colleges see 16% increase in study of sign language. The New York Times.Google Scholar

Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431–461.Google Scholar

Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S., & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358.Google Scholar

Lichtenstein, E. H. (1998). The relationships between reading processes and English skills of deaf college students. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 80–134.Google Scholar

Liddell, S. (1984) think and believe: Sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language, 60, 372–392.Google Scholar

Liddell, S. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Liddell, S., & Johnson, R. E. (1986). American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 4, 445–513.Google Scholar

Liddell, S., & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64, 195–277.Google Scholar

Liddell, S. & Metzger, M. (1998). Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 657–697.Google Scholar

Lieberth, A. K. & Gamble, M. E. B. (1991). The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. Journal of Communication Disorders, 24, 89–99.Google Scholar

Lillo-Martin, D. & Meier, R. P. (2011a). On the linguistic status of “agreement” in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics, 37, 95–141.Google Scholar

Lillo-Martin, D. & Meier, R. P. (2011b). Response to commentaries: Gesture, language, and directionality. Theoretical Linguistics, 37, 235–246.Google Scholar

Loehr, D. (2007). Aspects of rhythm in gesture and speech. Gesture, 7, 179–214.Google Scholar

Long, J. S. (1918). The Sign Language: A Manual of Signs, Being a Descriptive Vocabulary of Signs Used by the Deaf of the United States and Canada. Gallaudet College. Des Moines, IA: R. Henderson.Google Scholar

Lu, J. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017). Combining categorical and gradient information in sign and spoken communication. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature. University of Brighton.Google Scholar

Lu, J., Jones, A., & Morgan, G. (2016). The impact of input quality on early sign development in native and non-native language learners. Journal of Child Language, 43, 537–552.Google Scholar

Lucas, C. (1995). Sociolinguistic variation in ASL: The case of DEAF. Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, 1, 3–25.Google Scholar

Lucas, C. & Bayley, R. (2010). Variation in American Sign Language. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages (pp. 451–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lucas, C., Bayley, R., Rose, M., & Wulf, A. (2002). Location variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(4). 407–440.Google Scholar

Lucas, C., Bayley, R., & Valli, C. (2001). Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign Language: Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, Vol. VII. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Lucas, C., Bayley, R., & Valli, C. (2003). What’s Your Sign for PIZZA? An Introduction to Variation in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Luckner, J. L., & Handley, C. M. (2008). A summary of the reading comprehension research undertaken with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 6–36.Google Scholar

Luttgens, K., Deutsch, H., & Hamilton, N. (1992). Kinesiology: Scientific Basis of Human Motion. 8th edition. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.Google Scholar

MacNeilage, P. F. (2008). The Origin of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

MacNeilage, P. F., & Davis, B. L. (1993). Motor explanations of babbling and early speech patterns. In Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and Face Processing in the First Year of Life (pp. 341–352). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

MacSweeney, M., Brammer, M. J., Waters, D., & Goswami, U. (2009). Enhanced activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus in deaf and dyslexic adults during rhyming. Brain, 132, 1928–1940.Google Scholar

MacSweeney, M., Campbell, R., Calvert, G. A., McGuire, P. K., David, A. S., Suckling, J., & Brammer, M. J. (2001). Dispersed activation in the left temporal cortex for speech-reading in congenitally deaf people. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268, 451–457.Google Scholar

MacSweeney, M., Campbell, R., Woll, B., Giampietro, V., David, A., McGuire, P. K., Calvert, G. A., & Brammer, M. J. (2004). Dissociating linguistic and nonlinguistic gestural communication in the brain. Neuroimage 22, 1605–1618.Google Scholar

MacSweeney, M., & Cardin, V. (2015). What is the function of auditory cortex without auditory input? Brain, 138, 2468–2470.Google Scholar

MacSweeney, M., Goswami, U., & Neville, H. (2013). The neurobiology of rhyme judgment by deaf and hearing adults: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1037–1048.Google Scholar

MacSweeney, M., Waters, D., Brammer, M. J., Woll, B., & Goswami, U. (2008). Phonological processing in deaf signers and the impact of age of first language acquisition. Neuroimage, 40, 1369–1379.Google Scholar

Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maddieson, I., Bhattacharya, T. Smith, E., & Croft, W. (2011). Geographical distribution of phonological complexity. Linguistic Typology, 15, 267–279.Google Scholar

Mak, J. & Tang, G. (2012). Movement types, repetition, and feature organization in Hong Kong Sign Language. In van der Hulst, H. & Channon, R. (eds.), Formational Units in the Analysis of Signs (pp. 315–337). Nijmegan: Ishara Press.Google Scholar

Mandel, M. (1981). Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Mann, W., Marshall, C. R., Mason, K., & Morgan, G. (2010). The acquisition of sign language: The impact of phonetic complexity on phonology. Language Learning and Development, 6, 60–86.Google Scholar

Marentette, P. F. & Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Principles for an emerging phonological system: A case study of early ASL acquisition. In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J., & Mayberry, R. (eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 71–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Markwardt, F. C. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement Test – Revised Manual. Circle Pines, MI: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar

Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Marschark, M. (2009). Raising and Educating a Deaf Child: A Comprehensive Guide to the Choices, Controversies, and Decisions Faced by Parents and Educators. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Marshall, C. R. & Morgan, G. (2015). From gesture to sign language: Conventionalization of classifier constructions by adult hearing learners of British Sign Language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 61–80.Google Scholar

Martinez del Rio, A. (2018). Distribution of structure within the handshape and movement parameters in ASL: A comparison of complexity based approaches. ms, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Masataka, N. (1992). Motherese in a signed language. Infant Behavior & Development, 15, 453–60.Google Scholar

Mathur, G. & Rathmann, C. (2010a). Verb agreement in sign language morphology. In Brentari, Diane (ed.), Sign Languages (pp. 173–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mathur, G. & Rathmann, C. (2010b). Two types of nonconcatenative morphology in signed languages. In Mathur, G. & Napoli, D.J. (eds.), Deaf around the World: The Impact of Language (pp. 54–82). Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mauk, C. E. & Tyrone, M. E. (2012). Location in ASL: Insights from phonetic variation. Sign Language & Linguistics, 15, 128–146.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537–549.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R., Del Giudice, A. A., & Lieberman, A. M. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 164–188.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I. & Eichen, E. B. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I. & Fischer, S. D. (1989). Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory & Cognition, 17, 740–754.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I. & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain and Language, 87, 369–384.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I., Lock, E., & Kazmi, H. (2002). Development: Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417(6884), 38.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I. & Witcher, P. (2005). What Age of Acquisition Effects Reveal about the Nature of Phonological Processing (Tech. Rept. No. 17, 3). San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego, Center for Research in Language.Google Scholar

Maye, J. & Gerken, L. A. (2000a). Distributional cues to phonemic categories. In Proceedings of the 20th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Maye, J., & Gerkin, L. (2000b). Learning phoneme categories without minimal pars. In Howell, S.C., Fish, S.A., & Keith-Lucas, T.(eds.). BUCLD 24 (pp. 522–533). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Maye, J. & Gerken, L. A. (2001). Learning phonemes: How far can the input take us? Proceedings of the 21st Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

McCandliss, B. D., Fiez, J. A., Protopapas, A., Conway, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2002). Success and failure in teaching the [r]-[l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model of plasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 89–108.Google Scholar